Re: what does "serialization" mean?

From: Corey Murtagh (emonk_at_slingshot.no.uce)
Date: 06/25/04 

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:43:37 +1200

Edward G. Nilges wrote:
> Corey Murtagh <emonk@slingshot.no.uce> wrote in message news:<1088088591.185713@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>...
<snip>
>>So tell me eddie, what exactly /is/ character 0x90 in ASCII? Or indeed
>
> My name isn't "eddie". In any face to face encounter you'd do me the
> courtesy of using my name if only because of physical cowardice.

So, what, you're such an impressive physical specimen that I'd be scared
into being nice? Sorry eddie, but you're dead wrong there as usual. I
guess you're projecting your own insecurities on to others again.

>>any of the characters from the Unicode block labelled "C1 Controls"?
>>How about ASCII character 0xB0, which several different ASCII charts
>>list different values for?
>
> The acronym Ascii has a variety of referents, however, in a binary
> opposition to international characters useful in the real work you
> neglect to engage in this trolling behavior, it means 0..255. In other
> contexts it means the same as what IBM documents refer to as the
> graphical character set and what I refer to in published material as
> "the characters displayed in common fonts such as Times New Roman and
> Courier New and available on the most common keytops".

Times New Roman on which platform? The one I have here supports a fair
chunk of Unicode. Oh look, so does Courier New. And yep, Arial does as
well.

Looks like they're not very good examples of ASCII. And I note that you
failed to answer the question put to you. Color me 9 shades of
completely unsurprised.

> What burns your ass is that I have sufficiently wide experience
> (which, in fact, commenced with 6-bit BCD, transitioned through the
> 8-bit EBCDIC era, and learned ASCII years ago) to be able to produce
> what are in fact precise definitions based on praxis, whereas you have
> had to painfully memorize and swot.

Here we have another example of eddie posturing and claiming authority,
as well as making wild stabs in the dark at my personality profile and
abilities.

So if you /can/ produce a precise definition, why haven't you done so?
Pony up little man.

>>>The pseudo-expert is typically unconscious of history and therefore
>>>must assert negative facts, for all he knows is there is no knowledge
>>>and no memory.
>>
>>And the pompous fool is typically incapable of admitting fault.
>
> Not where it doesn't apply, jerk face.

That proves my point quite nicely, thank you. Having failed to bully me
into agreeing with you, you resort to sad little name-calling.

>>>You are filibustering the important distinction which is between FF
>>>and 100 for this is where international characters begin. You are
>>>trolling this discussion thread in a way Arthur O'Dwyer has appealed
>>>you to cease.
>>
>>Since I am not a soldier of fortune and am not involved in any way with
>>legislative processes, I question the validity of your use of the word
>>'filibustering'. However since you are quite vocal about your right to
>
> Totalitarians and Fascists are often self-appointed language police.
> This commenced in fact with Strunk and White and continues today in
> racist reactions to Hispanic instruction and Ebonics, as well as
> constant attacks on the creativity of language in the name of
> centralized authority.

Man, could you /get/ any more pathetic?

Buy a clue eddie. Language evolves, sure, but it does so by
/consensus/. Simply applying your own personal definitions to an
established word is not a decent communication method. All you're doing
is making yourself look like a fool who's trying to sound authoritative.

>>apply new meanings to words without explanation, I guess we'll just have
>>to guess at what you /really/ mean.
>
> All you have to do in fact is read the frigging definitions. What part
> of 0..255 don't you understand?

Go read the definitions of 'filibustering' and get back to me. While
you're at it, go look up some of the other overblown and pretentious
words you routinely misuse.

>>>>>Part of the reason for the 80% failure rate of enterprise systems is
>>>>>little circles and groups with their own private language.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, nostalgia. Has anyone kept a list of the hundreds of things that
>>>>eddie has claimed are responsible (in part or in full) for that mythical
>>>>80% failure rate?
>>>
>>>My name is not Eddie, and again, this is behavior which Arthur O'Dwyer
>>>has requested you cease. Furthermore, since as a pseudo-expert all you
>>>have to disseminate is ignorance in the form of negative claims, you
>>>are obviously resentful of a person with knowledge and memory.
>>
>>Note the lower-case 'e' above. That is not a typo.
>>
>>As for 'negative claims'... my claim that ASCII is /not/ the same as
>>UTF-8 is quite positive, I assure you. It is not a claim made in
>>ignorance, either of history or fact.
>>
>>Your constant diatribes and character assassination attempts are getting
>>rather tiresome. Time to up the dosage again eddie.
>
> My name is not "eddie". It is Edward.

As I've stated before, I afford you the respect you have demonstrated
that you deserve. In other words, you're acting like a precocious
child, so I'll damn well treat you like one.

> Racists and other thugs label people. They call them "niggers",
> "spics", "fags" and "bitches". This is because the colonialist wants
> to assert his superiority to others by being the only one with
> language.

I'm not labelling you, eddie. I'm just treating you with the [lack of]
respect you deserve. You brought this on yourself, so don't go crying
to me about it. Act like a grown-up and I'll treat you like one.

> You are through moronization and overspecialization unable, as I have
> been able at three universities, to explain concepts in the only clear
> way possible, through the history of praxis. You are, I would guess,
> one of those horrible fat men who give boring presentations based on a
> private language refracted through the professional cowardice of your
> overspecialization and as such you are part of the 80% failure rate of
> enterprise system and you are the reason why American programming jobs
> are migrating offshore.

Gee, must be a "how many points can I get wrong in one post" experiment.
  Let's see...

1) My measured IQ is well above the range that /used/ to be labelled 'moron'

2) Your explanations, based on the examples here, are wordy and
intentionally vague, not to mention littered with errors and extremely
poor style - both in code and in communication.

3) Last time I checked I had about 4% body fat. Fat is the /last/
descriptive anyone apply to me.

4) I live outside the US, so am in no way a contributor to anything that
goes on there, except as a side-effect of any international
communication I participate in.

I could dig more out of that last waffle, if I gave half a ***. 

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"